Massachusetts Senate passes 'red flag' gun bill

Posted June 7, 2018 at 4:31 PM

Great Mills, Md., High School students, with alumni and parents, join the March for Our Lives rally to demand stricter gun control laws, on March 24, 2018, in Washington, D.C. (Karl Merton Ferron/Baltimore Sun/TNS)(Karl Merton Ferron)

BOSTON -- The Massachusetts Senate on Thursday passed a bill on a voice vote creating a method for a family member to have someone's guns taken away if the person poses a danger to themselves or others.

Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem, D-Newton, who sponsored a version of the bill, said it is "heartbreaking" to consider these policies, but necessary because of the fear children face from gun violence today.

"We did not imagine when we went to school that an unstable person with access to weapons would change the course of our lives forever," Creem said.

Senate President Harriette Chandler, D-Worcester, said the bill provides a framework for removing weapons from the hands of someone who may use them for harm. "It will reduce the risk of suicide and murder, and will encourage distressed people to seek the mental health treatment that they may need," Chandler said. "But perhaps most importantly, this bill gives family members the tools and confidence to help their loved ones in extremely tense and emotional situations."

The House already passed a version of the bill.

The Senate voted on the House version but added several of its own amendments. It will be up to House leaders whether to agree with those amendments or send the bill to a committee of House-Senate negotiators to be worked out.

Once the House and Senate agree on a final version, the bill will go to Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, for his signature.

Baker said Thursday that he supports the bill "conceptually," although he still needs to see the final version. Baker noted that he said even before the House started its debate that "we were conceptually comfortable with it."

Momentum for the bill has grown ever since a school shooting in Parkland, Florida, brought increased attention to issues of gun control. Massachusetts already has some of the nation's strictest gun laws.

Under the bill, if a family or household member believes someone poses a risk to themselves or another person, they can petition a District Court judge to immediately suspend that person's gun license and remove their weapons. Within 10 days, the judge would hold a hearing, and the person would have a chance to argue whether the protective order should be extended for up to a year. To grant an order, a judge must find "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the person poses a risk.

A ruling could be appealed through the regular appeals process. The respondent has the right to be represented by an attorney.

The police would store the person's guns until the order expires and the person's license is reinstated.

There are penalties both for violating an extreme risk protective order and for filing false statements in order to harass someone.

"We're not changing the 2nd Amendment, we're not doing anything drastic," Creem said. "All we're doing is making restrictions on those that should not be using guns."

Creem said often after tragedies, family members say they are not surprised because there are "red flags" that point to someone's mental instability or suicidal thoughts. This will provide another tool, other than the ability to go to the police, to address that risk.

Someone who is the subject of an order would be given information about mental health counseling and other resources. Under a Senate amendment, the petitioner would also be given that information.

Cindy Rowe, executive director of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, said the extreme risk protective order bill "will save lives."

"This is the most important change we can make to gun laws in our state," Rowe said.

Leslie Friedman, whose grandfather was murdered 45 years ago, is a gun control advocate who came to the Statehouse to watch the vote. Friedman said there have been mass shootings where people who had access to guns had mental health issues. "Those guns should have been removed from their access," Friedman said.

Five other states have passed similar laws.

The Gun Owners Action League, Massachusetts' gun rights lobby, opposes the bill. Jim Wallace, executive director of GOAL, said very few suicides in Massachusetts are gun-related, and lawmakers passed up a chance to actually do something about suicide. When the bill was in the House, Wallace said, "We tried in vain to put together a lot of mental health things that would have vastly improved the bill that stands before us now."

Wallace said the bill has "due process problems." For example, he said, an emergency order can be issued before the respondent is notified.

The bill would also regulate stun guns, after a Supreme Judicial Court ruling struck down the state's ban on stun guns. The Senate and House bills provide different ways to license stun guns.

The Senate, in an amendment sponsored by Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, eliminated a 24-hour period someone had to turn over their guns under the House bill, instead making the order effective immediately.

Other amendments passed by the Senate relate to procedures if the respondent does not appear in court, establishing a firearms law review commission, establishing data reporting requirements, detailing the type of mental health materials available, and other changes. Attempts to change the legal standards of evidence used for granting an extreme risk protective order were rejected.